• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

**BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

I don't quite understand how the rights of the minority are in conflict with marriage, speech, or press.

Well fortunately for society, homosexuality isn't the majority. And the laws are setup right now to discriminate against that minority, however unintentional it may be.
 
Quick point, nobody is being told they can't get married. It isn't a fundamental right to change marriage to suit your own needs. That's the real issue.
Yes, I'm not sure how much of the reasoning provided by the court as to why marriage is a fundamental right actually applies to the idea of a same sex marriage.
 
The tally is currently 41 wins and 2 losses. The losses were a state judge in Tennessee and a federal judge in Louisiana. I posted the pdfs to the those rulings below.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Tennessee-marriage-ruling-8-5-14.pdf
http://freemarry.3cdn.net/f1b2d8bccd3c506d83_o2m6bhyfu.pdf

Not anymore...
"The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for an immediate expansion of same-sex marriage by unexpectedly and tersely turning away appeals from five states seeking to prohibit gay and lesbian unions. The court's order effectively makes gay marriage legal now in 30 states." Court clears the way for gay marriage expansion

He was asking about state courts, not federal.

I'll be the first to admit that all the levels of the courts get a little jumbled to me, so when I hear one court wins and another loses... without the context of the levels, I get a little lost.

State courts don't really matter at this point because their on the bottom rung as I understand it. And with the Supreme Court out of the picture, that leaves the highest courts the Court of Appeals correct? And if that is so, I'm assuming that (at least) one of them has heard the case, otherwise it wouldn't of gotten a shot at the SC. So on the Appellate level, how many have heard and what's the tally there. Because correct me if I'm wrong but with the SC not hearing any cases like this, their rulings are what go onto become precedent that the lower courts will then cite.
 
The dumb ones.

Yeah, but it happens. The last year of my marriage, I can probably count how many times I had sex on one hand. (If I kept count, but it wasn't often that's for sure)

I guess the point is that they're not watching to see if you are having sex. Except for the legal contract, what's the difference between a sexless marriage and a roommate situation?
 
Yes, they did, but it was subject to the existing state's licensing requirements. It was not a right. And I am suggesting no such thing. I am clearly stating that marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution but what is, is that any unremunerated rights pass directly, not to the fed to decide, but the states and the people.

You are citing the 10th amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The problem with your argument is along came the 14th amendment which put a certain limit on the powers of the states. It states...

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So...the constitution does no specifically mention "marriage" but it does mention "laws" and same sex marriage bans happen to be "laws" and as a matter of argument they happen to be "laws" which deprive certain people " of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and deny certain people with their jurisdiction "equal protection."

Now if you need further precedent we have Loving versus Virginia which was the court case in 1968 in which the Supreme Court struck down interracial marriage bans and as the majority decision stated...

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

So to take the "state marriage bans are fine because marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution" argument would mean that SCOTUS was somehow wrong in striking down the interracial marriage bans on the grounds of the 14th amendment. It just is not a historically or Constitutionally sound argument to make.
 
Same was above, but will repeat for emphasis, If there weren't laws and statuettes on the books giving preferential treatment to heterosexual marriage (like tax and family law), then you would have a point. By making such laws, are they not already involved in the matter? And if they are, how equal treatment not come into play?

I don't see how that would be true. If so, then the feds would be involved in almost everything. Not that they are not trying to do so. I challenge anyone here to read through the Constitution and see what power the Federal government is actually given and compare that what it has been doing. Then go back and see that there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Federal government power to be involved in most of what it does.
 
Yes, they did, but it was subject to the existing state's licensing requirements. It was not a right. And I am suggesting no such thing. I am clearly stating that marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution but what is, is that any unremunerated rights pass directly, not to the fed to decide, but the states and the people.

NO. An unenumerated right is not a right is flux. There is nothing in the Constitution that states that unenumerated rights shall be purview of the states.

It just so happens that the Colonial states set themselves up as marriage authority claiming that right.

If the states can claim 10th amendment states rights on marriage, then the people can claim their 9th amendment right as well.

The whole of the US Constitution is the people's rights over the state.
 
I'll be the first to admit that all the levels of the courts get a little jumbled to me, so when I hear one court wins and another loses... without the context of the levels, I get a little lost.

State courts don't really matter at this point because their on the bottom rung as I understand it. And with the Supreme Court out of the picture, that leaves the highest courts the Court of Appeals correct? And if that is so, I'm assuming that (at least) one of them has heard the case, otherwise it wouldn't of gotten a shot at the SC. So on the Appellate level, how many have heard and what's the tally there. Because correct me if I'm wrong but with the SC not hearing any cases like this, their rulings are what go onto become precedent that the lower courts will then cite.

Several circuits have ruled on the matter, and a couple more are in the process right now.

And yes, with SCOTUS rejecting the case, the circuit court decisions stand. Every circuit that has upheld same-sex marriage will have marriage equality in all of its states now. (well, I think technically each state has to have its ban challenged, but since the precedent is already set that's really just doing the paperwork)

Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Utah just had marriage equality granted directly by this SCOTUS (in)decision. North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming are all covered in the same circuits as the first five, so they have effectively had marriage equality granted, it's just a matter of filing the challenges. Federal judges for those states will be bound by their circuit's decision.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how that would be true. If so, then the feds would be involved in almost everything. Not that they are not trying to do so. I challenge anyone here to read through the Constitution and see what power the Federal government is actually given and compare that what it has been doing. Then go back and see that there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Federal government power to be involved in most of what it does.

Only if you take a strict reading of the enumerated powers. Otherwise, "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses leave a ton of leeway.
 
I'll be the first to admit that all the levels of the courts get a little jumbled to me, so when I hear one court wins and another loses... without the context of the levels, I get a little lost.

State courts don't really matter at this point because their on the bottom rung as I understand it. And with the Supreme Court out of the picture, that leaves the highest courts the Court of Appeals correct? And if that is so, I'm assuming that (at least) one of them has heard the case, otherwise it wouldn't of gotten a shot at the SC. So on the Appellate level, how many have heard and what's the tally there. Because correct me if I'm wrong but with the SC not hearing any cases like this, their rulings are what go onto become precedent that the lower courts will then cite.

In terms of the federal constitution state courts are the end of the chain for unremunerated rights. They decide if the issue comports or conflicts with the STATE constitution. They should not be allowed to consider precedence set by the federal courts in their decisions for obvious reasons.

That said, the state courts are chained to the state constitution where it comes to non federal constitution granted powers and rights matters of the state and the people. In many of the states the bans were included in the state's constitution requiring state courts to honor that.

The federal courts have run roughshod over the US Constitution to take the power to have a say in an unremunerated "right" that clearly falls to the state and the people.

I know, clear as mud, right? :mrgreen:
 
I'll be the first to admit that all the levels of the courts get a little jumbled to me, so when I hear one court wins and another loses... without the context of the levels, I get a little lost.

State courts don't really matter at this point because their on the bottom rung as I understand it. And with the Supreme Court out of the picture, that leaves the highest courts the Court of Appeals correct? And if that is so, I'm assuming that (at least) one of them has heard the case, otherwise it wouldn't of gotten a shot at the SC. So on the Appellate level, how many have heard and what's the tally there. Because correct me if I'm wrong but with the SC not hearing any cases like this, their rulings are what go onto become precedent that the lower courts will then cite.

Currently at the Appellate level, every case that has been heard has been decided in favor of striking down same sex marriage bans. That includes rulings from the 7th circuit, 4th circuit, and 10th circuit. The 6th circuit has heard arguments and is expected to rule any day now.

The 9th circuit is widely anticipated to also strike down same sex marriage bans based on their previous rulings but have not heard all the arguments yet.
 
I don't see how that would be true. If so, then the feds would be involved in almost everything. Not that they are not trying to do so. I challenge anyone here to read through the Constitution and see what power the Federal government is actually given and compare that what it has been doing. Then go back and see that there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Federal government power to be involved in most of what it does.

The Federal government is involved because it has been asked by the people to get involved. The people can not run to the Constitution and amend it to fix problems in our daily lives...that is why we have laws.

Marriage and child custody are contracts that have to be settled in a court of law. Who offers that service? Google? AT&T? Walmart? ...No the state and federal governments.
 
NO. An unenumerated right is not a right is flux. There is nothing in the Constitution that states that unenumerated rights shall be purview of the states.

It just so happens that the Colonial states set themselves up as marriage authority claiming that right.

If the states can claim 10th amendment states rights on marriage, then the people can claim their 9th amendment right as well.

The whole of the US Constitution is the people's rights over the state.

I think you need to reread the US Constitution.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
I don't see how that would be true. If so, then the feds would be involved in almost everything. Not that they are not trying to do so. I challenge anyone here to read through the Constitution and see what power the Federal government is actually given and compare that what it has been doing. Then go back and see that there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Federal government power to be involved in most of what it does.

In it's original state, then yes you are correct. However, even the founding fathers knew that the Constitution wasn't perfect and would need to have a way to adapt and change with an evolving society. I truly believe that when Thomas Jefferson talked about freedom for all men, he believed it. Society at the time though prevent the full breathe of those words to be embraced. Again, that's why the founders put in a mechanism to add to/change the Constitution through amendments. And one of those amendments by the way talks about equal treatment.

Several circuits have ruled on the matter, and a couple more are in the process right now.

And yes, with SCOTUS rejecting the case, the circuit court decisions stand. Every circuit that has upheld same-sex marriage will have marriage equality in all of its states now. (well, I think technically each state has to have its ban challenged, but since the precedent is already set that's really just doing the paperwork)

You said Circuit Court, so the Appellate Court doesn't have the ultimate say in the matter then? How many circuits have ruled?
 
I think you need to reread the US Constitution.

Same-sex marriage bans are powers prohibited to the States, via the 14th amendment.
 
Currently at the Appellate level, every case that has been heard has been decided in favor of striking down same sex marriage bans. That includes rulings from the 7th circuit, 4th circuit, and 10th circuit. The 6th circuit has heard arguments and is expected to rule any day now.

The 9th circuit is widely anticipated to also strike down same sex marriage ban based on their previous rulings but have not heard all the arguments yet.

All federal courts.
 
Same-sex marriage bans are powers prohibited to the States, via the 14th amendment.

No, absolutely not. Sexual orientation is not covered by the 14th, nor was that the intent of the 14th to begin with.
 
The 9th circuit could release a decision any day now, which would add an additional five states: Idaho, Nevada (immediate), as well as Alaska, Arizona, and Montana. After all the red tape is finished with, that will bring the total to 35 states with marriage equality.
 
In terms of the federal constitution state courts are the end of the chain for unremunerated rights. They decide if the issue comports or conflicts with the STATE constitution. They should not be allowed to consider precedence set by the federal courts in their decisions for obvious reasons.

That said, the state courts are chained to the state constitution where it comes to non federal constitution granted powers and rights matters of the state and the people. In many of the states the bans were included in the state's constitution requiring state courts to honor that.

The federal courts have run roughshod over the US Constitution to take the power to have a say in an unremunerated "right" that clearly falls to the state and the people.

I know, clear as mud, right? :mrgreen:

I think at this point, we can just ignore what the individual state constitutions say. Like it or not, the US Constitution trump State Constitution. I understand their is an argument on what the US Constitution has to say, but at this point, the argument really begins and ends there.

Currently at the Appellate level, every case that has been heard has been decided in favor of striking down same sex marriage bans. That includes rulings from the 7th circuit, 4th circuit, and 10th circuit. The 6th circuit has heard arguments and is expected to rule any day now.

The 9th circuit is widely anticipated to also strike down same sex marriage bans based on their previous rulings but have not heard all the arguments yet.

Can't like, but that answers my question thanks.
 
No, absolutely not. Sexual orientation is not covered by the 14th, nor was that the intent of the 14th to begin with.

Gender is, and your "intent" argument is just an opinion. If the people writing the 14th amendment only wanted it to cover race, they worded it wrong. How terrible, they worded it in a manner that can be broadly interpreted towards individual liberty. Sorry this bothers you.
 
No, absolutely not. Sexual orientation is not covered by the 14th, nor was that the intent of the 14th to begin with.

You're contending that the equal protection clause does not cover SSM?
 
You are citing the 10th amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The problem with your argument is along came the 14th amendment which put a certain limit on the powers of the states. It states...

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So...the constitution does no specifically mention "marriage" but it does mention "laws" and same sex marriage bans happen to be "laws" and as a matter of argument they happen to be "laws" which deprive certain people " of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and deny certain people with their jurisdiction "equal protection."

Now if you need further precedent we have Loving versus Virginia which was the court case in 1968 in which the Supreme Court struck down interracial marriage bans and as the majority decision stated...

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

So to take the "state marriage bans are fine because marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution" argument would mean that SCOTUS was somehow wrong in striking down the interracial marriage bans on the grounds of the 14th amendment. It just is not a historically or Constitutionally sound argument to make.

Yep, and if the state had a constitution that laid down one man and one woman definition of marriage they would only be in violation of the 14th if they didn't allow one man to marry one woman. That's equality under the law.

As for the rest, it's just nonsense in this discussion. You cannot claim with a straight face that homosexual marriage has anything to do with our need for survival.
 
You're contending that the equal protection clause does not cover SSM?

Hey now, all 42 of those federal judges are activist judges maybe?
 
Back
Top Bottom